Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Monk
1) I don't know why you feel NK would use nukes against China, unless you know something more than I do on that issue. Otherwise it seems odd that you believe NK would use a nuke against its staunchest supporter.
|
I don't think NK would use nukes on China. However, if a regional nuclear war were to erupt, the danger of China being sucked in is fairly significant.
Quote:
|
2) I also believe that with weaponised nukes, NK's first target would be the USA not Japan. That is where the Russian nudge could help NK.
|
Afraid I must disagree with you here. I think that NK's first target would be South Korea. 25% of your nearest (and most numerous) enemies population in one city... simply too good an opportunity to pass up. Japan would most likely be hit (or threatened) to deny the US of a staging area for reinforcements. Attacks on the US would most likely be threatened as retaliation for American nuclear attack, but not actually enacted unless NK is glassed (and even then, odds are we'd get their nukes in our strike anyways.
Quote:
|
You are assuming that the country launching attacks would have only one or two nukes.
|
Well, if they had just developed them or acquired them from Russia, that is all they would have. The only nation that retains a truly credible second strike capability against the United States is Russia.
Quote:
|
First off, even "dirty" bombs are very effective you don't need weapons from enriched uranium or plutonium. With attacks on a large number of US cities with this type of weapons, the US ability to wage war can seriously be restricted. Of course, the USN would still be there and that is a different ball game. Secondly, if the US mainland was seriously afflicted, Russia would smell an opportunity and a second strike directly from Russia could be telling. This is provided that Russia can build in enough tactical surprise to prevent a US retaliation.
|
Regardless of any of this, there is simply no way to prevent massive US retaliation with our nuclear deterrent. Even assuming that Russian nukes catch every one of our missiles still in their silos (highly unlikely, but let's just assume), our submarine based nuclear deterrent is still sufficient to wipe out every urban area in Russia. It would still be suicide to attack usin this manner.
Quote:
|
Usually as I seem to understand, a nuclear weapon has more than one trigger. And the triggers are actually difficult to master in a sophisticated nuke. Therefore someone who has been "gifted" a nuke by Russia won't be able to remaster a trigger any time soon. Hence Russia would still determine the firing of the weapon. Like you said, it is a "huge step forward technologically" for a country who has been "gifted" a nuke.
|
I'm not so sure about this. However, something I do know is that if necessary, the country in question can simply remove the nuclear materials, and use it to create their own nuclear weapon (even if much more primitive).
Quote:
|
Good Question. I read that some of the erstwhile soviet republics like Lithuania have the highest suicide rates in the world. In Central Asia, other than kazakhstan, not one of the other countries have delivered on any of the independance time promises. Ukraine's new government is already developing cracks, the President dismissed his own cabinet and government recently. None of the erstwhile soviet republics are stable or well off economically. Therefore yes, a lot of these populations look back on the soviet era as the "good times".
|
From what I've read, most of the "uneducated poor" (who still form a large majority in these nations) like neither their current government (for the reasons you outlined above), nor the Russians (for oppression and Russianization). This means that destabilization in the regimes in these countries is unlikely to work to Russia's benifit.
Quote:
|
Afghanistan and chechnya are not one and the same in psyche. Chechnians have already been brutally repressed by the Russians. It is very difficult for any large uprising in Chechnya. And Chechnya is not viewed by the Russians as a country they are invading but as a part of their country, their will to fight will be superior than in Afghanistan. Supplying the Chechnians wont do the US a whole lot of good.
|
It would bleed the Russians, and if the Russians are already bleeding us, what would be our incentive not to do so? My main argument here, is that it is in both country's best interests not to get involved in this kind of low level bleeding contest.
Quote:
|
Yes. The famous mandala theory of Chanakya. But the problem is that the enemies of the US are stronger than the enemies of Russia.
|
But we are also far stronger than Russia, and much further away from our enemies. Personally, I think it evens out.
Quote:
|
Thsi would be a very serious tactical blunder. IF you helped Islamic extremists, you would look so hypocritical as to lose every friend you have on this planet. Not only that, you have already seen the backlash of that policy once, it can only be worse this time around.
|
You can pass off nearly anything as being acceptable. Here we are merely endorsing "self-determination" of the long suppressed people of Central Asia. Remember how the world shrugged off Iraqi use of chemical weapons on the Iranians by blaming both sides equally? That kind of spin control happens all the time.
Quote:
|
The higlighted statement makes no sense, you lost 4000ppl in one day on 9/11, how is that a beneficial trade off? Not only this but the fact that every US asset in the world has become a target for terrorism seems beneficial to you?
|
How many would we have lost if the Soviets had charged into West Germany?
Quote:
|
For Example, the oil ministry in Kazakhstan is under strong Russian influence, I think the minister is also Russian. Islam Karmiov of Uzbekistan also seems to enjoy strong Russian support. The local population wants jobs and better living conditions, there were revolts not because they wanted democracy but due to the failure to deliver on promises by the previous governments.
|
I'm not arguing about the government, or even the urban population. It's the rural poor that would carry this fight into Russia.
Quote:
|
I really place no belief in the fighting abilities of the muslims. They pretty much run away from battlefields.
|
Which is why the United States is having absolutely no problem in Iraq?
I'm not questioning anyone's ability to
take land full of Muslims, I am questioning their ability to
hold it indefinately.
Quote:
|
1) The kurds are a different ball game. Its not a simple political decision.
|
I concur that the Kurds are a very special case. However, from a perspective of American self-interest, it should be an easy decision to arrive at.
Quote:
|
2) Turkey going under is a major problem for south-eastern Europe, Greece, Cyprus and west Asia. I don't think destabilising 70% of the world's oil is a brilliant idea.
|
Most of the oil coming out of that region right now comes from the Gulf, which wouldn't be particularly disturbed by a seperate Kurdistan, even if Turkey did come apart (highly unlikely that they would, however).
Quote:
|
3) I am also against destabilising Secular, democratic governments.
|
LOL. Good point, and I must admit you have me there. The only response I really have to that, is that it is better to reward our staunchest friends than it is to reward those who have been lukewarm supporters at best. Just because a nation is a democracy, doesn't mean that it can't work against our best interests.